Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 10, 2010 3:42pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Transcoding, anyone? Volunteers Very Welcome

Here's a list of BIG feature films and their approximate file sizes. Though a couple of these have small (~250Mb) downloads available, most all of them nearly tip 4Gb with no alternate download. Needless to mention, a 700Mb xvid or 500 x264 would cover all the quality issues and make these really available. (I've saved out a couple to work on myself).

Born to gamble 3.7 gig
Cowboy counsellor 2.6gb
Crooked circle 3.9 gb
The dark hour 2.8 gb
Desirable lady 3.5
The drifter 2.7 gb
The great commandment 3.8gb
Feud maker BIG
The fighter 3.8gb
Fighting renegade 3.3
Loaded pistols 4gb
Long shot 3.9gb
Power dive 3.9gb
Rainbows end 2.9
Renegade girl 3.8
Rip roaring buckaroo BIG
Shadows of death BIG
Trail Riders BIG
Crime patrol 3.6Gb
Thirteenth guest 2.9Gb --- Moongleam
Road to happiness 3.1Gb --- elmagno
Escape to paradise BIG
Blood of Jesus BIG
Desert escape 3.8
Hats off 3+Gb --- elmagno
The Lady says no 3.3Gb --- elmagno
Law of the timber 3.8Gb --- elmagno
Sunset Range --- elmagno
Rolling home 3.8/2.4

This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-03-09 09:32:44

This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-03-10 23:42:57

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Mar 8, 2010 1:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I here ya! When my only choice is to download a 2-4GB MPEG-2 file of a movie I haven't seen or it's highly compressed MPEG4 derivative, I'll first go with the MPEG4. It's usually acceptable. When it isn't, my choice is to skip it, maybe download it later, or wait a hour or more for it to come down. Before they switched encoding methods 1-2 years ago, I could choose to download a MPEG1 derivative, which had high quality video in a much smaller file than the MPEG2. What IA needs to do is add a 1MB MPEG4 derivative for download to fill the quality gap.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 8, 2010 2:31pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Spot on. A 1Gb mp4 would be great. I am noticing that a 1.5Gb file (avi or mp4) is becoming de facto in some places. I just watched a copy this size of "Ill Met By Moonlight," and it was nice.

It's really too bad that IA derivations now only split to ogv and 512kb mp's--only because they are nearly equal in quality and the resulting choice is thus not so great.

Also, when I have posted x264 mp4's, IA doesn't derive.

It's all a work in progress. I'll take mine with everything.


This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-03-08 22:31:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Mar 8, 2010 2:42pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Actually, when I suggested '1MB MPEG4', 1MB was referred to the encoding bitrate, which would be double what IA uses now for MPEG4 derivatives. This would yield much better video quality from those huge MPEG2s, which are encoded at 4-8MB. I use a 1630-2160KB overall bitrate for my x264/aac MPEG4 uploads, and IA derives those Ok. I used to upload DivX/aac MPEG4s (much faster encoding), but after IA changed their encoder again about 6-10 months ago derivatives were made out of sync. *sigh* It is a work in progress, indeed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 8, 2010 3:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Well, I think we're both talking, in somewhat different ways, about the same result. A better encoding rate (&) file size, no matter what the container or codec. I'll try another mp4 and see what happens, as it has been a year, roughly, since I have.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Mar 8, 2010 4:28pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Yeah

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 8, 2010 9:40pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Do you transcode with 2 passes? 1630--2160KBit/sec. seems quite high for H264.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Mar 8, 2010 9:51pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Not since I switched to H-264.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 10, 2010 1:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I'll take The Thirteenth Guest.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 10, 2010 3:24pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

OK, good deal. I have done "The Lady says NO," "Hats Off," and I'm about to do "Sunset Range." I'll update my original post tomorrow with our progress and intentions.

It's sort of odd in the computer age, but like Guyzilla, an upload takes me five to six hours, so I'm thinking of doing eight or ten of these biggies and then mailing them in on DVD. Low tech, but less than twenty minutes of 'puter time and less than a dollar for "shipping." I do generally like the (coal-fired) Internet, though.

By the way, I'm encoding single pass x264, AAC 128, mp4 container. The average bitrate is between 1100 and 1500.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 11, 2010 1:42am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

That's a tolerable bitrate, but wouldn't two passes give better results? Either higher quality or smaller file size? I don't think the extra time needed for the extra pass matters much, because it's the computer's time, not your time. I often let the transcoding program run while I sleep.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 11, 2010 4:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

90% of the movie transcoding I've done has been two pass, whether xvid or 264, but I thought for these I'd try one pass 264.

I've watched most of the first two of them and can't see any degradation, but that's always in the eyes of each beholder. The two I watched didn't have much fast transitioning so I may be in for a surprise soon.

Anyway, I've got a longer list of these fat boys--most of them are westerns. And most were posted quite a while ago when good bandwidth was scarcer.

I've been here since about Machine Gun Mama and I never bothered to invest than much time to download them, but I really would have if they had been <1000Mb and more my cup of tea.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 12, 2010 9:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: And then again . . .

I have just been reading the x264 section of the mencoder man, and it has convinced me to go back to 2-pass, even with x264 and even with fairly low quality sources. I am going to go pick up my only 4-core machine in a day or two and set it up exclusively for transcoding.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 13, 2010 12:52pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: And then again . . .

I'm no expert on video codecs, but I understand that H264 is very advanced and efficient.

From the mplayer manual's section on x264:

bitrate=
Sets the average bitrate to be used in kbits/second (default: off). Since local bitrate may vary, this average may be inaccurate for very short videos (see ratetol). Constant bitrate can be achieved by combining this with vbv_maxrate, at significant reduction in quality.

So the bitrate is allowed to vary. More complex segments will get a higher bitrate, and simpler segments will get a lower bitrate. While this can't be as good as 2-pass encoding (because only a limited look-ahead is used), it's better than using a constant bitrate.

I would guess, then, that 1 pass is sufficient with H264 for videos that aren't too demanding, for these 2 reasons:

1. H264 is very efficient.
2. The bitrate is allowed to vary.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 13, 2010 2:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Here's twelve I have just coded or dloaded

These were all BIG files with meager alternatives:

Timber Queen 3.7Gb DONE
Murder on the High Seas DONE
The lady says no DONE
Sunset range 2.7 DONE
Hats off 3+Gb DONE
West of the divide DONE (From PublDomainTorrents)
Mr reckless 3.8 DONE
Revenge of the virgins (now downloading from peer net)
Crime patrol 250 3.6 DONE
The dark hour 2.8 gb DONE
Million Dollar Weekend
With Words and Music


Also (maybe saving you some labor, I hope) I have almost all of 13th Guest downloaded in a 700 avi file, but who knows what shape it will be in.

Finally, my list of BIG files with few alternatives has also grown BIG itself. Here it is alphabetically:

American Empire 3.9Gb
Black stallion 2.3Gb
Blood of Jesus
Border vengeance 3.2
Border patrol 3.5Gb
Border Patrolman 2.0Gb
Border Caballero 3.5Gb
Born to gamble 3.7 gig
A bride for henry 3.9Gb
Cowboy Holiday (1935)2.9Gb
Cowboy counsellor 2.6gb
Crooked circle 3.9 gb
Danger flight 3.1gb
Desert esacpe 3.8
Desirable lady 3.5
The drifter 275 2.7 gb
Escape to paradise
The feud maker 3.7gb
Fighting renegade 3.3
Fhe fighter 320 3.8gb
Fighting deputy 3.0Gb
Fighting men 3.9 Gb
Fighting stallion 3.7Gb
Flesh and the spur 3.2Gb
Gangsters of the frontier 3.6Gb
The great commandment 3.8gb
The girl from monterey 3.7Gb
Kansas Pacific 3.1Gb
Lady in the Death House (1944) 3.4 Gb
A life at stake 3.1 gb
Loaded pistols 4gb
Long shot 3.9gbMachine Gun Mama 3.7Gb
Nabonga 4gb
Outlaws' paradise 3.3Gb
Panthers Claw 2.9Gb
Parachute Battalion 3.1Gb
Phantom of 42nd St 3.8Gb
Power dive 3.9gb ia
Rainbows end 2.9
Renegade girl 3.8
Rip roaring buckaroo
Rolling home 3.8/2.4
Shadows of death
Trail riders

FINIS

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 8, 2010 10:30am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I just uploaded one you didn't mention:

http://www.archive.org/details/Black_Raven_movie

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 8, 2010 10:39am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

Yes, that's a good film. I think I got mine from publicdomaintorrents but will certainly be interested in viewing yours, and, in general, I'm glad it's here now at IA.

My list isn't comprehensive--I just started looking over my downloads over the years and found out why I didn't have certain titles. I'm downloading "Danger Flight" to transcode. Not a good film like "Black Raven" but I feel it's worth doing. Nice work.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Mar 8, 2010 1:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

The bigger files look better and smoother on larger screen tv with less pixelation. Just my personal opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 8, 2010 2:15pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

These ultra-large files were probably created by one-pass transcoding.

They can probably be reduced in size without loss of quality if two-pass, variable bitrate transcoding is employed, along with video noise-reduction.

Also, a codec that's more efficient than mpeg2 should be able to reduce size with no quality loss.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 8, 2010 1:43pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I'm right with you on that. Some of these larger files may present definite advantages to the viewer, but then some won't.

Believe me, I'm no expert on this, but a lot of this early stuff is clearly not blu-ray ready. But you are right: more can definitely be better. Case by case, I think.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Mar 8, 2010 10:55pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I tend to stick with uploading 700MB DivX files. Those tend to take about five hours to upload with my computer. I hate to think how long a 4GB file would take to upload. Probably days.

This post was modified by guyzilla on 2010-03-09 06:55:52